Watchmen

"Watchmen", a graphic novel written by Alan Moore and illustrated by Dave Gibbons, is primarily set in New York City in 1985 during the Cold War. During this time, a few retired vigilantes that were once in a group known as the Watchmen return to the streets fighting criminals. Prior to reading the book, my book club created questions that would help us guide our reading. One of the very important questions was, "What moral decisions do the characters have to make that we may have have to make in our own lives?" Throughout the book, the characters have to make decisions that are ultimately driven by their own perspective. Although their actions may not be similar to ones that we may have chosen, they face the same question of whether or not something is morally correct or incorrect. Two characters that I am able to relate to the the most are Jon Osterman, who later becomes known as Doctor Manhattan, and Walter Kovacs who is called Rorschach by his peers.

Doctor Manhattan is the only character in the book that actually has "super-powers." He got these powers in an accident where he got stuck in a test chamber with an intrinsic field generator. Although he should have died, he comes back with the powers of teleportation and precognition (seeing into the future.) When he's invited for an interview on television, he is accused for giving people cancer. For example, one person asks, "Then how about this one- Did you know that Ms. Janey Slater linked romantically with you in the sixties, is currently suffering from lung cancer? Doctors have given her six months to live. Notice any connection?" Upset and irritated with the media, Dr. Manhattan teleports everyone out of the studio and then leaves to mars. The doctor's decision is one we often make in our own lives, whether it is best to "flee or fight?" In this case the doctor chose to flee to mars rather than "fighting" and sticking up for himself. Although I think the biggest cause for his leaving was that he felt "out of place" and couldn't connect with humanity, there is another subliminal message that the other was trying to send. I think another reason that Dr. Manhattan left was because he felt that the greater good of the people was more important than himself. After all, because people did not consider him a hero and more of a villain, and because tension between the U.S. and the Soviet Union were building, he thought it would be better for him to leave. This is another decision that we have to make in our own lives. Whether the greater good of humanity is more important our own well being. Rorschach is another important character in the book that has an interesting personal philosophy. For example, after the death of the comedian which he believes is not only a murder but a conspiracy, Rorschach vigorously pursues solving the crime. His methods for gaining information are unsound and immoral but he never seems to give up. This decision by Rorschach is another that we often have to make. This decision is whether to keep pursuing in something, or knowing when it's best to stop. In this case Rorschach continued to pursue in the investigation of the death of the comedian, rather than accepting that it was an ordinary murder. All in all, these two character's make decisions that we make in our own lives.

Literature plays an extremely important role in where our moral decisions come from. Reading literature helps us understand society and shape our personal philosophy which ultimately lead us to make the very important decisions in our life that we do. 

Book Review: Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar

I have finished reading "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," and can say with 100% certainty that it has both changed my perception of "us," (humans, the universe) and yet it has also made it so much more complex. Although it is an extremely well written book, I have to say that I am slightly disappointed in the end.

The book did an excellent job in teaching the concepts behind philosophy such as idealism and empiricism but it never there was no evidence behind these concepts. I understand that the book was not trying to be bias in it's influence on the reader's personal view, but I think that it would have adequate to include evidence such as scientific evidence behind concepts such as the question of whether or not there is a god. I feel that this would help the reader in their pursuit of finding their own personal philosophy if there was evidence. As for me, I think there will have to be much more reading on the subject in order to fully come to a conclusion on where I stand.

All in all, this is an excellent book for anyone that is willing to do a little extra thinking while reading.

Philosophy of Law

In "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," the author, Thomas Cathcart, brings up the topic of the purpose of laws. He states the very common theories such as, "codify moral duties" and to "promote the virtuous character." Although these may be true, I think there is a more important theory. As Jeremy Bentham, a utilitarian, once said, "the purpose of laws is to produce the best consequences for the greatest number of people." The purpose of law is to in fact, protect the people.

As many can agree, most laws are morally correct. However, what's more important to note is that these laws are created in order to protect the people, not for the sake because it's morally correct. For example, in certain states there is a law where if there is someone on your property, you have the authorization to take disciplinary means. Although this is not morally correct because it allows you to kill someone, it is created for your protection. As I was reading, I was wondering where our morals came from? If you have an idea, please leave a comment.

Reality, or Simple Perceptions

As I continue to read "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar," by Thomas Cathcart and Daniel Klein, I find more and more troubling philosophy topics that are very "grey." One of these topics is the concept of idealism, which is defined as, "the group of philosophies which assert that reality, or reality as we can know it, is fundamentally mental, mentally constructed, or otherwise immaterial." Created by George Berkeley, idealism relates to reality and how we perceive it. To state idealism simply, God portrays objects into our mind, and nothing actually exists. However, there are many holes to this topic.

First off, idealism contradicts with empiricism, with is the idea that we gain knowledge through our senses. Most people can agree with this because for the most part this is true. Through our knowledge we are able to make inferences. The book gives a very good example of this: you see a sheep sheared on one side. Through your observations you know that farmers do not usually shear only one side of the sheep. Therefore, you are able to infer that the other side of the sheep is also sheared. So, if nothing actually exists then how are we able to make observations through touch? Although there are many other questions that can disprove Berkeley's theory, Berkeley has an argument that can not go wrong. He says, that if you try to imagine an object, and you think about the properties of that object, you can only think perceive those properties in your head as an idea. Therefore, he states that since we have no evidence of that object besides that perceptions in our head, it does not exist. This I can agree with, however, I do not agree with the idea that God portrays these objects into our head. So what do you think about this?         

Everything Has a Meaning, At Least According to Leibniz

I have recently began reading, "Plato and a Platypus Walk into a Bar" which teaches philosophy through jokes that state philosophical concepts quite clearly. While reading, the book introduced to me Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, a rationalist or philosopher who influenced the minds of many people with his ideas. Many of his ideas include religion, stating that everything happens for a reason. As the book states, his theory is the complete opposite of a joke where God is speaking to a man that has recently entered Heaven saying, "It's a bit embarrassing to admit, but everything that happens happens for no real reason."

If everything did happen for a reason, and if somehow the tables were turned and what was supposed to happen didn't, wouldn't we know? Wouldn't there be a series of repercussions resulting from that event? This brought me to the new idea of our own conscience. Throughout the day, we ultimately make our own decisions. We make the decision to wake up at whatever time we please, eat whatever we want when ever we want, and carry out actions of our choice throughout the day until the next. If we make our own decisions, then how is it that there is a more powerful reason behind me buying a small soda at McDonald's rather than a large other than I'm not very thirsty? What is the other reason for a bicyclist getting hit by a taxi other than that the driver was speeding and went through a red? I'm not saying that Leibniz's theory is wrong or that anyone else that is religious and believes in a higher power is incorrect, I simply am just trying to make sense of his approach in a way that I can understand.

A Future On The Line

As I continue to read "Million Dollar Throw" I've learned some very important information. To recap, Nate Brodie has won the opportunity to throw a football for a chance at one-million dollars. Although it appears that he does not have anything to lose, we've learned that the pressure will be on him more than ever. In the beginning of the book we learned that his friend Abby was going through some "rough times." Now I've learned that these "rough times" are about her inability to properly see. Knowing that one of his dearest friends is going blind, I don't think that Nate will be able to deal with the large amount of pressure. After all, he could surely help his friend's health with a million dollars. I believe that Nate is also facing some financial hardships at the moment. This brings me to the question, right before Nate throw's the football will he think about himself or his dearest friend Abby?

New Book: Million Dollar Throw

I have recently began reading "Million Dollar Throw" by Mike Lupica. The story takes place in Valley, Massachusetts where Nate Brodie, a fan of Tom Brady, the star quarterback of the New England Patriots, and a star quarterback for his own team faces difficult situations. So far, Nate has bought a signed football by Tom Brady and was able to enroll himself into a contest for the chance to throw a football thirty yards into a small hole. If he wins the contest and throws the football successfully, Nate would win one-million dollars. Although it may appear that Nate has nothing to lose, there may be more pressure than there appears.
One reason that there may be more pressure than it appears is because I believe that Nate's family is struggling financially. For example, the reason for Nate being able to pay for the whole cost of the football was because he simply did not have enough money. In the beginning of the book, Nate also said that his friend Abby was going through some rough times which could mean that maybe she is struggling financially as well or she may unhealthy. If so, one-hundred million dollars could certainly help that.